Should I call this raise on the river?

Sure, I agree that most low stakes players cbet too much OOP, and certainly too much in multi-way pots.

I also agree that players will stab a little too much when checked to, and telegraph information with their bet size - good observation.

Absolutely the check back range of the general player pool is not well protected at all.

Yes, solvers are a great tool but bridging the gap between solver equilibrium and fishy low stakes can be challenging. However I can't say I totally agree with players making more mistakes when faced with a check rather than a bet, and the obvious major drawback there is that a round of betting is taken out of the hand when they check back - which is a disaster when hero smashes the flop, as in the hand above.

I also don't think low stakes players are floating too wide on the flop; many are just ABC playing their hand. But they certainly aren't raising much on the flop at all. Certainly the players who overfold are likely to make the mistake of over-stabbing and then overfolding to a check-raise.

Sure it's more complicated to have a 35/65 mixed cbetting/checking strategy when OOP, but I think the bottom line is simply that we have to vastly narrow the value hands/semi-bluffs that we use, and ensure that some hands we would cbet when IP are instead used to protect our checking range OOP. In these weak low stakes games I just don't think it can be correct to check 100% of the time against poor players; I totally get what you're saying but I think it can be taken too far sometimes. At the end of the day, I drilled this flop and I want to start piling money in whilst I'm almost certain I'm ahead and have a draw to the nuts; checking instead feels like overkill - yes I can check-raise, but there's never a guarantee villain will stab when I check.

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it a lot and enjoy discussing these things.

It isn't a disaster when the flop gets checked through here.

Think about it. They're going to bet their thick value hands. They might sometimes stab with their draws or weak value. They're only checking back with weak value and air.

If we bet, they're just folding weak value and air, and probably just folding turn or river with the rest of their range when we barrel. We're probably not getting three streets of value if we make our flush.

Checking flop gives them a chance to bet their value, bluff with their draws, and catch up with their air. When we bet, we're almost never getting raised, and folding out a lot of hands we want to continue.

Consider how we'd play the rest of our range here, and the value in checking, to let our opponents bet or check back. They're totally making more mistakes when we check compared to when we bet.

If you node lock a solver, to make the IP player stab some hands that a human player is likely to stab, and check back the weakest hands, the solver will start to check range from OOP. Marc Goone showed this in this video - https://youtu.be/6urFJ_QJOdE?si=9to_1G2i...

Now, if we know our V is passive, and unlikely to stab, we can range bet. But without that read, we should mostly check range.

Low stakes players absolutely float too wide. As a group, they get sticky with weak value, chase their draws even when they're not getting the right price, and are overly optimistic about the likelihood they'll be able to steal the pot by bluffing on a later street.

Sure, these are all very good points, thanks for the input.

by docvail k

If you node lock a solver, to make the IP player stab some hands that a human player is likely to stab, and check back the weakest hands, the solver will start to check range from OOP. Marc Goone showed this in this video -

https://youtu.be/6urFJ_QJOdE?si=9to_1G2iI8kKb2eT

YouTube

GTO Poker Strategy Exposed: Why It's KILLING Your Win Rate

Now, if we know our V is passive, and unlikely to stab, we can range bet. But without that read, we should mostly check range.

Low stakes players absolutely float too wide. As a group, they get sticky with weak value, chase their

Show More...

Just checked out the video - very interesting, I've subscribed to the Youtube channcel.

Thanks for the help!

Background on the main guy, Marc Goone...

I know he was, and may still be a student of Bart Hanson (Crush Live Poker). Bart has had him on the call-in show and featured on his YT channel a number of times. He apparently goes by the user name "Squish My Tomato" in some venues. I've seen him play on HCL, and I think he's also been a commentator.

I think his videos are generally pretty good, though there are some instances where I might dial back on the aggression he's proposed when playing low stakes. I think we can accomplish the same goals while betting less, in most instances, and lose less when our opponents get sticky with weak value.

The videos I think you'll find most interesting are the ones where he node locks the solver to replicate what most human players are actually doing, and then re-solves to find how the solver adjusts to what human opponents are usually doing. That strat then becomes the basis for what Marc suggests we do.

Case in point, the solver might have a 35/65 mix of checking / c-betting from OOP as the PFR, but in that video, he's got a pro giving his response when the solver checks, and when the solver bets. When the solver bets, the pro isn't making too many mistakes, and is generally responding correctly. But when the solver checks, the pro is betting some, and even if he's not betting a lot, he's betting too much. When they re-solve, the solver starts checking 100 from OOP.

The point made is if a pro is making a fair number of mistakes vs a check, imagine how many mistakes bad players are making.

They add that if we know our V is passive enough to check back 100%, then we can c-bet 100%, but...I'm not sure I agree. I think a passive V is going to be flat calling with better hands often enough, and occasionally stabbing often enough, that I still generally prefer to play my entire range as a check as the PFR and OOP.

The one exception I might make is if I'm VERY sure my opponent is going to be checking back a lot AND is also over-folding to my c-bets. In that instance, I might fork my range, and check my value, and bluff with my draws and my air. But that's pretty rare, because of my aggro table image. My opponents tend to float my c-bets pretty wide, and tend to assume I'm weak whenever I check, so they stab pretty wide.

I'm not anti-GTO, but I think it's counter-productive to try to replicate what a solver is doing, or what a top pro like Linus is doing, at least at low stakes, because the solver is playing against the solver, and Linus is playing against other top pros, all of whom are trying to play GTO. But most 1/2 to 2/5 players aren't playing anywhere near GTO, and thus we should be making plays that set our opponents up to make mistakes.

I agree with Marc that there's value in having a strat for every situation that's simpler and easier to implement, rather than having a more complex mixed strat which is going to be more challenging for us to implement in real time against a mix of great, good, mediocre, bad, and terrible opponents.

I think his speech play is really strong. But you're getting a really good price, he can be spazzing or value owning himself once in a blue moon. If he made it bigger I think we could find a fold. I wouldn't beat yourself up about this one if you called and lost. I think the hand is well played. River is definitely worth a value bet and I think the size is pretty good. Maybe even a little bigger. We have to recognize thst the board paired and we can't go as crazy with our flushes for value. Somewhere between 60-85% pot makes sense to me.

Theoretically, your pf raise is a bit large, but V called, so all good.

On this flop, I think you should either check or bet big. With your specific hand, I would definitely bet big, like ~3/4 pot.

As played, you may go a bit bigger ott as well, but probably not too much, ~100 .

As played, river bet looks fine. I admit I am kind of stationy, but not folding for that price.

What's the reveal?

Bet a dollar against a donut V was nutted.

I've seen some of these videos on youtube. I think the overall approach is great but I'd question whether the packaged strategy can be practically implemented in most games. He says it's for 200BB but it seems more like a million. 3!, 6x+ checkraise, overbet, overbet is deep enough to screw an octopus and then murder it so your friends don't find out.

I don't entirely disagree.

I agree that some of the large bet and raise sizes suggested for late street aggression seem a bit unnecessary, and can lead to massive swings if opponents can figure out what you're doing well enough to counter it, or simply if you're up against an opponent with no fold button.

That said, I've been doing some of things he's suggested for a while, just intuitively, without really understanding why they worked. Having some logical explanation not only helps to understand, it also helps extend the logic to other scenarios, and clean up some mistakes.

Thanks for the input. I've watched a few videos now and really like what I've seen, and I certainly agree with your points, especially how Marc "node locks the solver to replicate what most human players are actually doing, and then re-solves to find how the solver adjusts to what human opponents are usually doing" etc. Super smart and effective - and I'm looking forward to testing this out!

Definitely, in hindsight the speechplay is absurdly strong and I should have taken it more seriously.

Thanks, glad you agree with how I played the hand in general, although in the end it was costly.

Yes I agree I could go bigger on the flop.

Just couldn't find the fold on the river; price was too good, I was in the hole, and I'd be playing for ten hours!

I called and villain had A♠9♠ for a boat.

I’m almost never an advocate for making big decisions on live tells from V’s we don’t have a lot of solid history with.

However, I can probably count on one hand in the last 20+ years the times I’ve seen the speech-jam not be very nutted.

I’d hate it, but would likely fold. If he’s the oddball who uses a reverse tell speech-jam with a bluff…..good for him, take the pot.

Sure thing, I agree with this. But I couldn't find the fold that day!

The point is that the price offered is very good and a loose passive low stakes novice can be value cutting himself with a worse hand here or spazzing out with a weird airball bluff; nobody mentioned or suspected any double float. Even good players have bluff raises here that my hand beats (as detailed by Piosolver).

Take submerisble's post with a grain of salt. It helps if you can ignore the snark and focus on the salient points. He tends to be unfiltered when it comes to his criticism, but he also tends to cut to the heart of strat discussions.

I think the point he's making here is that V flatted flop and turn (double-floated), then min-clicked the river, after giving a speech - that's a pattern of actions which in the aggregate indicates extreme strength, such that finding the fold on the river shouldn't require a lot of debate.

He appears to have overlooked that a lot of the discussion in the thread was about the line you took throughout the hand, not just whether or not the river is a call or fold. I think that part of the discussion was worth having.

For whatever it's worth, I just re-read your post about what the solver does with your hand. I still think I'd mostly check flop, and betting large on the turn. I'm not sure why the solver likes checking most, followed by betting small. I supposed it's because our hand is so nutted.

But against human opponents, I'd think the only hands that are calling us are worse flushes, maybe some non-believing straights, and then 2P/sets hoping to boat up. We don't want to give those hands a cheap look at the river, and those are all hands that are likely to pay off a big turn bet.

This is also why I'd prefer to check the river, when the board pairs. I'm not checking to fold to a bet, but his range is so narrowed by the previous action that it's hard to see him being able to bluff. It's doubtful he gets to the river with much 9x. The only hands we beat that he might bet would be worse flushes, or maybe straights if he's capable of going that thin for value.

It sounds like we have different definitions of what 'float' means, but in any case I agree that the river raise after the speech is of course very strong.

With my exact hand the solver indicated that betting small/large and checking on the flop all have very similar EV, so I guess a case can be made for all but of course as others have indicated it's easier to check range and then decide given how villain proceeds.

The solver also liked betting small or checking (highest EV) on the turn. From a human perspective, and against inelastic fish, I personally think it's fine to go for shameless value here.

I agree with what you said about checking the river having some merit. It just sucks when he checks back a hand that would have called a large bet, which happens a lot more than him raising and putting me in a tough spot (which is why I prefer betting rather than checking as a general rule in this situation - because I'm so rarely beat with the nut flush, given how the hand was played).

sorry been away for a while.

i don't think its ever a value cut when he speech minraises you (i think its very unlikely its a value cut prior to that from line alone).

pio solver has bluffs in every spot because it's trying to be balanced, in alot of abnormal spots it's only extremely good players / cheaters that find bluffs, not the other way around.

in this hand, i would never ever check the river and i think that's poor / results oriented advice. i don't think you really want to check much to a guy who you have described as passive who's open limping the button. you're going to be much better off actively putting in money yourself to build the pot on just about every street.

a final thing is if you're using pio to tell yourself that the river call is good or you need to check your range on the flop to protect yourself here, you're likely better off not studying at all for the games you're playing in.

Yeah I pretty much agree, perhaps the only value cut he can have is KJhh, and it's just never a bluff. I also agree I have to bet this river and then simply reassess if I get raised.

Sure, I'm not checking Pio in order to see how I should play in these games, I'm simply checking for the sake of seeing what the correct play is at equilibrium. However i've found it to be an invaluable tool that often provides some great insights into the game when I look at hands.

The EV is very closing between betting and checking on the flop, but I agree that checking range is a much simpler way to approach it.

This is glossing over very important factors in the hand with big affects on the range dynamics. To illustrate, let's contrast this situation against us raising first in from the hijack and villain cold calling the button.

When we raise first in from the HJ, we're playing a raise-or-fold strategy with an opportunity to scoop the blinds without anyone VPIPing, and our most common postflop scenario is IP against a player defending the blinds. For this reason, our range contains nutted hands (QQ+/AK) and strong value hands (AQ/99/QJs) for obvious reasons, but also contains more speculative hands (T8s/A2s/66) because of the possibility to win the blinds and the lack of alternative lines for VPIPing.

In this hand, however, we raise with the understanding that we will often be playing postflop out of position, and we raised despite having the alternative option of simply completing our SB and hoping to see a flop at a discount. Regardless of what our specific range is, it is by necessity specifically tailored to playing well in a scenario where it is HU OOP against the limper specifically.

As far as villain's range is concerned, when he cold-calls the button, they are (intuitively or otherwise) doing it with hands that they feel comfortable playing at that price point facing our raising range of hands. When they limp/call in middle position, they did so with a range of hands happy to take the 1bb initial price with the possibility of playing an unraised, often multiway pot with the blinds, and are now defending some portion of that range against a raise they did not necessarily know was coming.

Both of these factors make our range stronger and heavier on pure value hands, and their range more condensed. For this reason, we should be looking to bet often and expect to get a lot of folds for our hands that missed and/or a lot of marginal call-downs for our comparatively much stronger value range. Checking too much is letting them off the hook and allowing them to realize too much of their equity too easily.

By the way, I think similar dynamics apply to spots where you 3! out of the blinds, when you raise first in from the SB with a mixed limp/raise strat, when you 4! out of position, etc, so I think your assertion that we should largely be range checking OOP HU as the preflop aggressor is misapplied in most situations in an absolute sense and only holds true in a relatively large portion of live game scenarios because of how common cold calls are in these games. I think it'd be more correctly stated as "when there's a cold call, the cold caller has the initiative rather than the raiser."

Honestly, I think all the bog standard 2010 advice on how to win beat bad live poker games (be a b/f monkey, bet for large sizes with extremely polar ranges right from the beginning of the tree, bet larger on draw-heavy boards, front-load your thin value/protection bets earlier in the tree, etc) were basically constructed in a lab to exploit loose-passive players, and good solver study does more to confirm those priors than complicate them. I think a lot of people misapply the "loose passive" read, and that a lot of live players are actually loose-passive pre but their styles are more differentiated postflop (often just standard weak-tight rather than loose-passive), but so long as we take as fact that a player is both loose and passive postflop, the standard advice you get from all the you-know-who posters on LLSNL is going to be pretty reasonable.

All of that is to say, that I think your first two sentences are closer to the opposite of the truth. Particularly, the more passive players are, the more you should maintain the betting lead yourself AT THE VERY LEAST with hands that are aiming to get value on all 3 streets (especially hands that aim to get *exactly* 3 streets of value). I think the point about downsizing in the second half of the quoted is a little more sound, but bearing in mind that a proper adjustment to small sizes also involves a lot of raising so the described opponent is still hemorrhaging a lot of EV against a small bet in that way.

Commenting on all the implications therein would make this post even longer than it already is...

Thanks for the detailed input; it was interesting and instructive.